Madras High Court
M.Devanathan vs The Director Of School Education on 7 August, 2024
Author: S.S.Sundar
Bench: S.S.Sundar, Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup
Rev. Appl. No.114 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 07.08.2024
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
and
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP
Rev. Appl.No.114 of 2021
M.Devanathan ... Petitioner
-vs-
1. The Director of School Education,
Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 006.
2. The Chief Educational Officer,
Vellore District, Vellore.
3. The District Educational Officer,
Vellore District, Vellore.
4. The Head Mistress,
Government Girsl High School,
Guruvarajapet, Arakkonam,
Vellore District. ... Respondents
PRAYER : Review Petition filed under Order 47 Rule 1 read with
Section 114 of CPC seeking to review the order dated 22.01.2021 passed
in W.A.No.1026 of 2020 on the file of this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Sreedhar
For Respondents : Mr.J.C.Durairaj
Addl. Govt. Pleader
*****
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1 of 8
Rev. Appl. No.114 of 2021
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by S.S.SUNDAR, J)
This review application is filed seeking review of the judgment
dated 22.01.2021 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in
W.A.No.1026 of 2020.
2. The review applicant has filed two writ petitions challenging
the order of punishment of censure as well as the order rejecting the
request of the applicant/writ petitioner seeking reemployment to continue
in service till the end of the academic year. Both the writ petitions were
allowed by a learned Single Judge of this Court. It is to be noted that the
writ petitions themselves were heard after the period for which the writ
petitioner sought for reemployment.
3. As against the orders in the writ petitions, Writ Appeal
WA.2886 of 2019 filed by the Director of School Education against the
order allowing the writ petition setting aside the order of punishment was
dismissed. The writ appeal WA.1026 of 2020 filed by the Director of
School Education against the order of the learned Single Judge directing
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the appellants to pay salary for the re-employment period from
01.12.2009 to 31.05.2010 was allowed. It is against the said order, the
present review application is filed. The relevant paragraphs in the writ
appeal are as follows:
"17. As far as the plea of extension of service of the
respondent is concerned till the end of the academic
year, we wish to observe that re-employment of a
teacher is not meant to benefit a teacher. The object
of re-employment is to ensure that the students are
not affected when a teacher is set to retire from
serivce during the middle of the academic. At the
same time, the teacher who seeks for re-employment
must exhibit a blame-worthy conduct and free from
any disciplinary proceedings pending against him.
since the order of punishment has been quashed, it
does not mean automatically, the respondent is
entitled for re-employment. Moreover, the service of
the respondent had not been extended after his
retirement, on re-employment. Therefor,e when the
respondent has not got his service extended after his
retirement, rather to say, he has not worked
physically, after his retirement, the question of
granting monetary benefits to the respondent will not
arise. Therefore, the order passed by the learned
Single Judge allowing WP No.25307 of 2009 is liable
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
to be set aside.
18. In the result,
(i) Writ Appal No.2886 of 2019 is
dismissed by confirming the order dated 28.06.2018
passedin WP No.3041 of 2010.
(ii) Writ Appeal No.1026 of 2010 (sic) is
allowed by setting aside the order dated 28.06.2018
passed in WP No.25307 of 2009.
(iii) The appellants are directed to confer
all monetary benefits payable to the respondent/writ
petitioner, upon his retirement from service,
including pension, within a period of eight weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
No costs. Consequently, all connected miscellaneous
petitions are closed."
4. The writ petitioner has filed the above review application
mainly on the ground that by proceedings dated 06.02.2020, the Chief
Educational Officer, has regularised the services of the writ petitioner for
the period from 01.12.2009 to 31.05.2010. The learned counsel for the
review applicant, relied upon the said proceedings dated 06.02.2020,
wherein, during the pendency of the writ appeal, the Chief Educational
Officer has passed the following order:
",jw;fpilapy; kDjhuh; brd;id.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
cah;ePjpkd;wj;jpy;. ePjpkd;w mtkjpg;g[ tHf;F
bjhlh;e;J. mt;tHf;F 03/02/2020 md;W nfl;g[f;F
tug;bgw;wJ vd;Wk; 10/02/2020f;Fs; chpa Mizfs;
tH';f ntz;Lk; vd ePjpkd;wj;jpy;
bjhptpf;fg;gl;lJ vd;Wk; muR rpwg;g[ tHf;fwp"h;
bjhptpj;Js;shh;/ vdnt ePjpkd;w mtkjpg;g[ tHf;F
jtph;f;Fk; tpjkhft[k;. ghh;it 1d;go tH';fg;gl;l
jPh;g;ghizia bray;gLj;Jk; tpjkhft[k;
nky;KiwaPL kDtpd; kPJ bgwg;gLk; ePjpkd;w
jPh;g;ghizf;Fl;gl;L (Out came of writ appeal) muR
rpwg;g[ tHf;fwp"h; Twpajd; mog;gilapy; nkw;go
MrphpaUf;F 01/12/2009 Kjy; 31/05/2010 tiu
kWepakd fhykhf fUjg;gl;L ,jd; K:yk;
Miz tH';fg;gLfpwJ/"
5. Since the writ petitions were allowed and a representation
has been submitted by the review applicant, in order to avoid contempt
proceedings against the appellants, an opinion was obtained from the
Special Government Pleader, pursuant to which, an order has been passed
on 06.02.2020 treating the period from 01.12.2009 to 31.05.2010 as the
period during which the writ petitioner was on re-employment subject to
the outcome of writ appeal. This order cannot be taken advantage by the
review applicant to seek review of the order dated 22.01.2021 passed in
the writ appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6. It is to be noted that the Division Bench has considered the
matter purely on merits and held that the review applicant/writ petitioner
is not entitled to re-employment for valid reasons. There is no error
apparent on the face of record and the order of the Division Bench cannot
be read as if this order in the writ appeal is subject to the order passed by
the third respondent during the pendency of the writ appeal. Had the
order of the third respondent dated 06.02.2020 been brought to the notice
of this Court while disposing of the writ appeal, the Division Bench
would have set aside the order or would have made an observation that
the said order will not control the order to be passed in the writ appeal on
merits.
7. Therefore, this review application is dismissed for want of
merits. No costs.
(S.S.S.R., J.) (S.S.K., J.)
07.08.2024
Index : Yes/No
NC : Yes/No
sra
To
1. The Director of School Education,
Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 006.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2. The Chief Educational Officer,
Vellore District, Vellore.
3. The District Educational Officer,
Vellore District, Vellore.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.S.SUNDAR, J.
and
SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J.
(sra)
07.08.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
